The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #156666 Message #3699402
Posted By: Keith A of Hertford
03-Apr-15 - 03:38 PM
Thread Name: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
Dave, I am not "rumbled" and there is no dishonesty.
The definition I quoted was the general definition, and it was then refined for specific gods.
The general definition still applies.
Raggy,
Professor you suggested that because there was a definition of a god that in itself proved that a god existed.
No I did not.
I have said there is not even evidence never mind proof that god exists/existed.
Steve,
You can't define the deity to everyone's satisfaction unless the clause "but he almost certainly doesn't exist" is in there somewhere.
No justification for such a clause Steve.
There is no evidence for it and atheists are a minority in every country.